Broadly speaking I have found many people aching for the smallest shred of sentimentality. This is what she's selling. The only amazing thing is just how little people will buy.
I would argue that the value is ultimately driven by people who want to own an item at a given price. People who are Elvis fans may want to buy an item and hold it forever, because of the nostalgia value for them.
It basically allows you to have the thing for only the difference between its investment value and the (presumably higher) investment value of an index fund, rather than having to pay its full price with no hope to ever get it back. Which causes the market price to be a lot higher than it would be otherwise.
“The most fundamental reason why there is no such thing as an objective or “real” value is that there would be no rational basis for economic transactions if there were. When you pay a dollar for a newspaper, obviously the only reason you do so is that the newspaper is more valuable to you than the dollar is.
At the same time, the only reason people are willing to sell the newspaper is that a dollar is more valuable to them than the newspaper is. If there were any such thing as a “real” or objective value of a newspaper—or anything else—neither the buyer nor the seller would benefit from making a transaction at a price equal to that objective value, since what would be acquired would be of no greater value than what was given up. In that case, why bother to make the transaction in the first place?”
As a toy example, imagine Alice farms Bananas and Bob farms Apples, but each is only able to eat the other food. They would both happily trade forever as they both gain value from this. This doesn't mean that the value is _subjective_, it means the value is _situational_, and I think the rigid vocabulary term and the connotations of the word are conflated a lot.
"Value" as in "utility", and "value" as in "currency" or unit of account.
When trading some currency for utility, each side of the transaction gains something more than what they gave up. The buyer of food got food they needed to eat. The seller of food (presumably has so much food they cannot eat it all) gains extra currency that they can use elsewhere.